> If we were actually using git branches for it, the CF app could > automatically close entries when they were committed. But that > requires them to be committed *unmodified*, and I'm not sure that's > reasonable. I also think requiring a git branch for the *simple* > changes is adding more tooling and not less, and thus fails on that > suggestion.
Well actually, the other advantage of using branches is that it would encourage committers to bounce a patch back to the submitter for modification *instead of* doing it themselves. This would both have the advantage of saving time for the committer, and doing a better job of teaching submitters how to craft patches which don't need to be modified. Ultimately, we need to train new major contributors in order to get past the current bottleneck. Of course, this doesn't work as well for contributors who *can't* improve their patches, such as folks who have a language barrier with the comments. But it's something to think about. --Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
